Author
Topic: what is the mission in Libya (Read 2543 times)

it started as an enforcment of a no fly zone. Now we are using airpower in attacking ground forces. Also we are hearing about regime change now how do you do that without putting troops on the ground? Also apparently we put boots on the ground when an airplane was shot down today and the troops having to rescue them. Well one of them looks like the friendly rebels are holding the other more to come on that i'm sure

there are rational reasons for wishing regime change in Libya. that's not what we say we are doing. if it's to protect civilians there are a number of problems with that. 1st, who are these people we are protecting? what is the plan after the dictator is gone? what happens if he doesn't go? a deeper question is whether or not these mid-east/Africa uprisings are spontaneous or orchestrated. both scenarios have big problems attached to them.

i don't see a good outcome in any of this.

Logged

.....The greatest changes occur in their country without their cooperation. They are not even aware of precisely what has taken place. They suspect it; they have heard of the event by chance. More than that, they are unconcerned with the fortunes of their village, the safety of their streets, the fate of their church and its vestry. They think that such things have nothing to do with them, that they belong to a powerful stranger called “the government.” They enjoy these goods as tenants, without a sense of ownership, and never give a thought to how they might be improved.....

there are rational reasons for wishing regime change in Libya. that's not what we say we are doing. if it's to protect civilians there are a number of problems with that. 1st, who are these people we are protecting? what is the plan after the dictator is gone? what happens if he doesn't go? a deeper question is whether or not these mid-east/Africa uprisings are spontaneous or orchestrated. both scenarios have big problems attached to them.

i don't see a good outcome in any of this.

ditto on not seeing any good from any of this...

also, an interesting article iterates our sentiments and questions as well and even posits an explanation..

With déjà vu we see US cruise missiles being launched from the sea, Libyan AA firing helplessly into the night sky at invisible B-2 heavy bombers, and the burning wreckage of armor and vehicles on desert roads.

Here we go again! It’s Iraqi-style shock and awe for Libya.

Let’s get that nasty Saracen, Muammar Gadaffi, the man we love to hate.

As in the case of Iraq, the assault on Libya was preceded by a huge barrage of anti-Gadaffi propaganda and steaming moral outrage by western media and politicians. American TV crews rushed to Libya to witness the wicked colonel get his comeuppance. None went to Bahrain or Yemen.

The attack was led by France. President Nicholas Sarkozy just suffered his own bout of shock and awe when polls showed his conservative party trailing the hard right National Front of Marine LePen. Blasting Arabs is a sure-fire way to win back the hearts of France’s rightwing voters. So "aux armes, citoyens!"

Bien sure, the French attack had nothing, nothing at all to do with unsubstantiated claims by Gadaffi’s number one son, Saif, that Libya has secretly financed Sarkozy’s last election campaign.

The ever-bumbling Arab League had first given a tepid ok to a no-fly zone to stop Gadaffi bombing rebels civilians, but then recoiled as western warplanes began attacking Libyan ground targets and civilians – including Gadaffi’s compound in Tripoli.

The fireworks were most impressive. To no surprise, Libya proved a total pushover. Its feeble military was routed.

But the nasty question then surfaced: what is the objective of this operation? Washington’s crusaders lacked a cogent answer.

Wars are waged to attain political objectives. Killing enemy forces is merely the means to this objective. The UN mandate is only to protect civilians, not to remove the Gadaffi regime. The US is targeting Gadaffi but claims – wink, nudge – that it is only after command and control targets.

But Gadaffi has been through many attempts to kill him. In 1987, he took me by the hand and led me through the ruins of his residence which had been demolished a year earlier by a US bomb that killed his two-year old daughter.

For the moment, the most likely scenario is that Libya will end up split into warring western and eastern camps. The western powers – minus Germany and Turkey who wisely refused to join the Libya attack – are likely to arm and support the Benghazi rebels. It’s also noteworthy that the African Union failed to endorse the anti-Gadaffi operation.

Gadaffi still retains some support in western Libya and from important tribes. So welcome to a Libyan civil war. Shades of Afghanistan and Iraq, where the US intervened to support rebelling minorities and ended up stuck in the middle of maddeningly complex civil wars.

Little is known about the rag-tag Benghazi rebels, now adopted by the western powers. Britain’s MI6 intelligence service has maintained some links with them for over a decade. But the rebels have no organized military power – which suggests western special forces and intelligence agents will soon become involved. This writer has reported their presence in Libya for many weeks.

It is possible that the Senoussi tribe will emerge from Benghazi’s chaos and reassert its historic overlordship of eastern Libya. In the 19th and early 20th centuries, the Senoussi were a powerful force that spread an Islamic revivalist movement from the Egyptian border to Morocco, and across much of the northern and middle Sahara.

The Grand Senoussi was one of the first authentic Arab national rulers and opponents of European colonialism of the modern era. Gadaffi overthrew the last Senoussi, the doddering Ibn Idris, in 1969. I met a number of the senior Senoussi clan in Tripoli and have no doubt they would be ready to assume leadership of anti-Gadaffi forces.

But what then? Are we to see a Libya riven by civil war? How long can a very expensive no-fly zone be maintained? Is the west ready to risk getting sucked into another conflict in the Muslim world? Are not Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen, Somalia and Pakistan enough?

Interestingly, the Libya operation is being run by Washington’s new Africa Command, a harbinger of growing US military involvement in oil-rich Africa. Yet here in Washington there seems to be no clear plan for an endgame in Libya, not even a notion of what to expect. Even normally hawkish Republicans are expressing concern.

There’s another big problem with Libya. Everyone hates the prolix Gadaffi, particularly Arab despots who he routinely blasts as "old women in robes," "Zionist lackeys," and "cowards and thieves." But the Arab world grows restive as it sees US-backed despotic regimes in Bahrain and Yemen gunning down protestors. Or watching reports of US air strikes killing large numbers of Pakistani and Afghan civilians. And, of course, seeing Israel using heavy weapons against Palestinian civilians.

America’s glaring double standard in the Mideast and Muslim world is a major reason for growing hatred of our nation.

Events in Libya may end up further enflaming such feelings.

America would be hailed as genuine liberator of long-suffering Libyans if it also intervened in Bahrain and Yemen – and perhaps Saudi Arabia – to protect civilians from the ferocity of their despotic governments and promote real democracy.

But it’s only oil-rich Libya that is getting the "humanitarian" treatment from the US and oil-hungry western European former colonial powers.

A fractured Libya will not only curtail oil exports, it will open the gates to a flood of African emigration to southern Europe. Gadaffi has long been cooperating with France, Italy and Spain to halt the flow of such economic refugees. He now threatens to open the flood gates. There is also a risk that the Libyan conflict could spread into neighboring Mali, Chad, Niger and Sudan.

Turkey has been proposing sensible diplomatic solutions but no one is yet listening to peaceful plans. Once again, the west is gripped by that old crusading fever, a combination of moral outrage at the wickedness of the unspeakable Saracens, combined with a pulsating lust for their riches.

The question President Obama should be asking himself is: given our $1.4 trillion deficit, can we really afford another little war whose rational is unclear and outcome uncertain?

The first salvos of this latest Mideast crusade have already cost taxpayers something like $100 million. That’s just for openers.-Eric Margolis

We even now have Generals on TV reporting conflicting missions. Who is in charge of the missin is it AFRICOM? NATO? UN? or god forbid France? Even with the two wars from Bush if based on lies or not we had a mission a goal to work toward. Here we have no civilian leadership and it appears a confused military leadership. Who is in charge?

i don't think it's about oil, or crusading. neither is it anything like Iraq. there is a whole other dynamic at work here. we need to figure it out. some has to do with the Europeans and their proximity to the trouble. it might be as simple as helping those who have helped in Afghanistan. my bigger fear is that we are being played in a plan to reshape the Muslim countries. if the goal of the fundamentalists is to reshape the Muslim world into one entitiy...something both Qaddafi and Achminutjob have said they desire, then old lines and leaders need to go so that the new can take shape.

it's very important for us to understand the Muslim fundamentalists end times beliefs. out of chaos comes their leader and the rise of Islam. there are enough of these believers in power that it is possible, even likely, that they are fomenting the chaos to bring about the fulfillment of their prophecy.

Logged

.....The greatest changes occur in their country without their cooperation. They are not even aware of precisely what has taken place. They suspect it; they have heard of the event by chance. More than that, they are unconcerned with the fortunes of their village, the safety of their streets, the fate of their church and its vestry. They think that such things have nothing to do with them, that they belong to a powerful stranger called “the government.” They enjoy these goods as tenants, without a sense of ownership, and never give a thought to how they might be improved.....

Please see obama response number 2. That answer leads me to believe Obama is not the one in charge here nor is he setting the mission goals

Keith

Barack Obama's Q&ABy Charlie Savage Globe Staff / December 20, 20071. Does the president have inherent powers under the Constitution to conduct surveillance for national security purposes without judicial warrants, regardless of federal statutes?

The Supreme Court has never held that the president has such powers. As president, I will follow existing law, and when it comes to U.S. citizens and residents, I will only authorize surveillance for national security purposes consistent with FISA and other federal statutes.

2. In what circumstances, if any, would the president have constitutional authority to bomb Iran without seeking a use-of-force authorization from Congress? (Specifically, what about the strategic bombing of suspected nuclear sites -- a situation that does not involve stopping an IMMINENT threat?)

The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.As Commander-in-Chief, the President does have a duty to protect and defend the United States. In instances of self-defense, the President would be within his constitutional authority to act before advising Congress or seeking its consent. History has shown us time and again, however, that military action is most successful when it is authorized and supported by the Legislative branch. It is always preferable to have the informed consent of Congress prior to any military action.

As for the specific question about bombing suspected nuclear sites, I recently introduced S.J. Res. 23, which states in part that “any offensive military action taken by the United States against Iran must be explicitly authorized by Congress.” The recent NIE tells us that Iran in 2003 halted its effort to design a nuclear weapon. While this does not mean that Iran is no longer a threat to the United States or its allies, it does give us time to conduct aggressive and principled personal diplomacy aimed at preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons.

The US is PLAYING the GAME - Go! We are changing the landscape of those who are friendly and neutral to the US in the Middle East, I believe that is the goal, with a more Democratic Middle East, a reformed Union of Countries will open all new trade possibilities. It's money, isn't it always.

Missing In Chief Obama is going to poor countries to try and talk them into spending what little money they have on expensive US made stuff, when they can buy 20 knock offs from China for the same cost. Good luck with that.

Would I rather get oil from the Middle East of the Americas, I think the Americas makes more sense. Should we investing millions in South American drilling prospective? I think we should start using more of or own Natural Gas, Clean Burning Coal, oil and other technologies - I'm nearly convinced that Solar will Never be practical. Wind is viable and should be exploited - I can see endless cornfields for alternative fuels and the same field loaded with hundreds of windmills. Make multi-use of the resources we have.

But if we gain another "partner" in a new government, that is another friend on the Mediterranean too. We are creating the same foxholes in the Middle East as we have done since Israel. We want ideally "friendly" and will accept "Neutral" countries, but once we invest "aid" anywhere, we have put a quarter down on their pool table, and we expect to play the next game.

I saw on junk pile of his troop's vehicles and I wondered how many missiles did we use just to clear this one small Army cluster. Imagine 8 or 10 missiles at $300K to $1.2 million each.

I think once you have air space contained, it is time for some helicopter support, surely we can loan our UN Committee our weapons of war while we are at it. Jets can see an handle most stuff, but a formation of The range on these missile attached and serious gun rotating machine will do all that is needed after a week by the US who has had lots of practice at Cutting off communications and disabling air fields and equipment in neighboring countries. It is the basics really, but it is amazing how well we can do it, often from hundreds and thousands of miles away.

Please enjoy the forum, and if it has helped you in any way, we hope that a small donation can be made to support our FULLY member supported forum. You will never see advertisements here, and that is because of the generous members who have made our forum possible. We are in our second decade as a beekeeping forum and all thanks to member support. At the top right of every page is a donations link. Please help if you can.

The US is playing a video game so to speak. No ground troops, just missiles and air support. So are we really at war? Yes we have put our troops in harms way, but we are fighting from a distance (thousands of miles away on a computer screen like a video game). I think that is what Obama is thinking.

And we are obeying the UN as a cover. Yes we have wanted to take Libya out for a while (like what 30 years now?). The rebels were starting to loose and nobody wants that to happen. By supporting the rebels we are assured that the oil spigot will not be turned off. Will it backfire on us. Probably yes. But we do need to keep the oil flowing even though it is a very little percentage of the worlds oil production.

Next question, is there an exit plan? I doubt it. I hope we keep bombing from a far and let the people determine their future over there.

Corn Ethanol is a boondoogle. We would need to dedicate 900 million acres of farm land to do it. That is 95% of the country’s farm land. What are we going to eat? How much is food going to cost?

Natural Gas: We don’t need to drill for more Natural Gas, we already have more than we know what to do with. Storage caverns are FULL. We’re a net exporter. We do need to find a way to use this stuff effectivley in vehicles.

France: I’m just happy to FINALLY see France taking a leadership role again.

I don’t recall much oil in Bosnia? Sometimes people do things just to prevent the slaughter of innocents.

Portland, home of the major clan of the tree huggers, had converted to LNG for some of it's busses. wonder what happened with that? i'll have to do some research. they are trying to build a new LNG pipeline though Washington to the port, but the nuts are holding it up. just getting the nuts out of the process would probably speed up exploration for everything, and the process of getting to market.

Logged

.....The greatest changes occur in their country without their cooperation. They are not even aware of precisely what has taken place. They suspect it; they have heard of the event by chance. More than that, they are unconcerned with the fortunes of their village, the safety of their streets, the fate of their church and its vestry. They think that such things have nothing to do with them, that they belong to a powerful stranger called “the government.” They enjoy these goods as tenants, without a sense of ownership, and never give a thought to how they might be improved.....

.....The greatest changes occur in their country without their cooperation. They are not even aware of precisely what has taken place. They suspect it; they have heard of the event by chance. More than that, they are unconcerned with the fortunes of their village, the safety of their streets, the fate of their church and its vestry. They think that such things have nothing to do with them, that they belong to a powerful stranger called “the government.” They enjoy these goods as tenants, without a sense of ownership, and never give a thought to how they might be improved.....

Germany already took their toys and went home. Norway pulled out (oh No what will we do). The Italians are upset and now do not want to allow access to their airstrips. France is starting to crawfish. England (now I caught this on the radio and not sure I heard it correct) has fired all their tomahawks and cannot afford to buy more so they went home. Coalition yeah right. This is a joke a weak leader was forced by the media into a war now low and behold we have a new fight to fight. This guy decides to put troops in harm’s way then gets on air force one and flees to south America to promise Brazil money for oil exploration. Yeah if I was in his coalition I would bail as well. Not much practice planning war as a community organizer huh?

i fear that after having gotten into this, we are going to bail also. i wasn't in favor of the action. i really wasn't in favor of going with no defined mission. still, when you have started a thing, it's important to finish it....if you ever figure out what the end game is.....

Logged

.....The greatest changes occur in their country without their cooperation. They are not even aware of precisely what has taken place. They suspect it; they have heard of the event by chance. More than that, they are unconcerned with the fortunes of their village, the safety of their streets, the fate of their church and its vestry. They think that such things have nothing to do with them, that they belong to a powerful stranger called “the government.” They enjoy these goods as tenants, without a sense of ownership, and never give a thought to how they might be improved.....